DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant claims the benefit of US Provisional Application No. 63339266, filed 05/06/2022 but claims 1-60 contain subject matter not disclosed in the provisional application, thus the effective filing date of 02/16/2025 has been used.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 48 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 48 recites “The method of claim 46, further comprising:
converting, by the processor, pixels determined not to be blood to shades of blue;
displaying, by the processor, data indicative of the converted pixels”. This appears to be a grammatical error/redundancy – there should be a linking “and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-60 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-57 of copending Application No. 18144804 (reference application). Although the claim(s) at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim methods and devices for detecting blood and generating blood indicative images, alerts, or location information.
In particular, the reference claim(s) recite a camera / display device and corresponding methods that determine blood from captured images, generate or display blood indicative output, provide alerts, alter image regions, and locate or map detected blood.
The instant claim(s) differ from the reference claim(s) primarily in reciting that the camera and display are separately stated, certain functions are expressly assigned to a processor, and corresponding outputs, controls, locations, or support structures are expressed as particular implementation species. These differences do not render the claim(s) patentably distinct because recasting the same claimed functions through separately stated components, express processor attribution, and particular implementation species is a functionally equivalent way of carrying out the reference claims blood detection, image processing, alerting, locating, and display operations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of this application have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claims 1 and 36, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-59 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner will analyze claim 1, and similar rationale applies to independent claim(s) 36. The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below:
The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a process / machine since the claim is directed to a device that examines image information, decides whether blood is present, and generates information communicating that determination.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since claim 1’s limitation of “a camera; a display; a processor configured for determining the presence of blood based on images captured by the camera and generating images on the display indicative of the blood detected” is/are directed to an abstract idea. The claim is related to a mental process as a person can visually inspect an image, determine that a region appears to contain blood, and mark or communicate that result. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The Examiner interprets that claim 1’s limitation does not provide additional elements or combination of additional elements to a practical application since the claim(s) is/are adding the words of “applying it” with more instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f) / insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See, MPEP §2106.04(a), Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the claims do not amount to significantly more since the claim(s) is/state:
“a camera; a display; a processor configured for determining the presence of blood based on images captured by the camera and generating images on the display indicative of the blood detected.” The examiner interprets the claim, in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation, to be drawn to Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the generic computer components of the display, camera, and processor recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Claims 2-35 and 37-59 depending on the independent claim/s include all the limitation of the independent claim.
The Examiner finds that Claim 2-5 and 37-40 involves communicating the blood determination result through a selected output. This is generic post-evaluation output activity. The claim describes routine image processing techniques without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 6-10 and 41-45 involves presenting information after classification. This is generic post-evaluation output activity. The claim describes routine image processing techniques without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 11-14, 46, and 48-49 involves altering the presentation of the unselected portions of an evaluated image. This is generic information presentation. The claim describes routine image processing techniques without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 15-17 and 50-52 involves adding a geometric shape corresponding to detected blood. This is generic classification. The claim describes routine image processing techniques without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 18-20 and 53-54 involves sensitivity and blood color classifications. At the level claimed, the limitations are generic evaluations and judgments about visual blood characteristics. A person can apply a narrower or broader visual criterion to decide whether an image depicts bright arterial blood or blood of a different color. The claim describes routine image processing techniques without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 21 and 55 involves locating a position of detected blood. This is generic localization. The claim describes routine image processing techniques without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 22-23 and 56-57 involves operator selected waypoints. Selecting and recording a location is part of mental record keeping. The claim describes routine image processing techniques without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 24-26 and 59 involves device pose, 3D waypoints, and augmented reality output. The limitations add generic location information, record keeping, and result display. The claim describes routine image processing techniques without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 27 and 29-30 involves handle and frame carriers. This is generic physical structure. The claim describes generic carrier structures without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 32-33 involves an extended reality display. This is generic physical structure. The claim describes generic headset structures without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, claims 1-27, 29-30, 32-33, 36-46, 48-57, and 59 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 28, 33-34, 47, 58, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 28 recite “light delivered to the display”. It is unclear whether the display receives, emits, or is illuminated by the diffused light.
Claim(s) 33 recite “the image” and “a second image identical to the image”. It is unclear which particular image is meant and its relationship to the headset display.
Claim(s) 34 recite “the device of claim 1, further comprising a device and a diffused light”. It is unclear what the second device is or its structural relationship to the camera/display/processor device inherited from claim 1.
Claim(s) 47 recite “the device of claim 46”. It is unclear whether the method scope is intended.
Claim(s) 58 recite “the device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 60 recite “the method of claim 60”. It is unclear the intended parent claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9, 15, 21, 34-37, 40-42, 44, 50, and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (EP 3603510 B1, hereafter referred to as Zhao).
Claim 1
In regards to Claim 1, Zhao teaches A device, comprising:
a camera (Zhao in ¶40 discloses cameras/image capture units);
a display (Zhao in ¶40 discloses a display);
a processor configured for determining the presence of blood based on images captured by the camera (Zhao in ¶14, 45-52 discloses a processor executes bleeding detection module 136 and evaluates color component pixels/ratios against a blood indication threshold to determine blood in camera acquired frames) and generating images on the display indicative of the blood detected (Zhao in ¶29, 67 discloses an icon, boundary, arrow, or false coloring with the camera scene and displays the combined images).
Claim 2
In regards to Claim 2, Zhao teaches The device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured for generating alerts when the blood is detected (Zhao in ¶67 discloses generating visual/auditory warnings when blood is detected).
Claim 5
In regards to Claim 5, Zhao teaches The device of claim 2, wherein the alert is a visual alert on the display (Zhao in ¶67 discloses icons, boundaries, false coloring, and flashing points on the display).
Claim 6
In regards to Claim 6, Zhao teaches The device of claim 1, further comprising a control setting, the processor further configured to perform color conversion to a plurality of pixels of the images that are detected as blood (Zhao in ¶42, 123 discloses permitting the user to control displayed false coloring and applying false color to detected blood regions).
Claim 7
In regards to Claim 7, Zhao teaches The device of claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to perform null conversion on pixels determined to be blood and display data indicative of the color of the blood detected (Zhao in ¶82 discloses having false coloring off leaves the acquired blood pixels in the original color while blood remains identified by an icon/marker).
Claim 9
In regards to Claim 9, Zhao teaches The device of claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to convert pixels determined to be blood to green and display data indicative of the converted pixels (Zhao in ¶82 discloses false color blood region as green).
Claim 15
In regards to Claim 15, Zhao teaches The device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to display geometric shapes corresponding to the data indicative of the blood detected (Zhao in ¶29 discloses displaying arrows, icons, boundaries, and flashing points corresponding to detected blood).
Claim 21
In regards to Claim 21, Zhao teaches The device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured for locating a position of the detected blood (Zhao in ¶83 discloses identifying and tracking the position/site of detected blood).
Claim 34
In regards to Claim 34, Zhao teaches The device of claim 1, further comprising a device and a diffused light (Zhao in ¶36-38 discloses an illuminator and LEDs).
Claim 35
In regards to Claim 35, Zhao teaches The device of claim 1, further comprising a caddy, wherein the caddy comprises an optical magnification and/or filtration device to the camera via a lens (Zhao in ¶24, 39, 57 discloses filters and a mount).
Claim 36
In regards to Claim 36, Zhao teaches A method, comprising:
determining, by a processor, the presence of blood based on images captured by a camera (Zhao in ¶14, 45-52 discloses a processor executes bleeding detection module 136 and evaluates color component pixels/ratios against a blood indication threshold to determine blood in camera acquired frames); and
generating, by the processor, images on a display data indicative of the blood detected (Zhao in ¶29, 67 discloses an icon, boundary, arrow, or false coloring with the camera scene and displays the combined images).
Claim 37
In regards to Claim 37, Zhao teaches The method of claim 36, further comprising generating, by the processor, alerts when the blood is detected (Zhao in ¶67 discloses generating visual/auditory warnings when blood is detected).
Claim 40
In regards to Claim 40, Zhao teaches The method of claim 37, further comprising generating, by the processor, a visual alert on the display (Zhao in ¶67 discloses icons, boundaries, false coloring, and flashing points on the display).
Claim 41
In regards to Claim 41, Zhao teaches The method of claim 36, further comprising performing, by the processor, color conversion to a plurality of pixels of the images that are detected as blood (Zhao in ¶42, 123 discloses permitting the user to control displayed false coloring and applying false color to detected blood regions).
Claim 42
In regards to Claim 42, Zhao teaches The method of claim 36, further comprising performing, by the processor, color conversion to a plurality of pixels of the images that are detected as blood (Zhao in ¶42, 123 discloses permitting the user to control displayed false coloring and applying false color to detected blood regions).
Claim 44
In regards to Claim 44, Zhao teaches The method of claim 41, further comprising:
converting, by the processor, pixels determined to be blood to green (Zhao in ¶82 discloses false color blood region as green); and
displaying, by the processor, data indicative of the converted pixels to the display (Zhao in ¶82 discloses displaying data indicative of the color of the blood detected).
Claim 50
In regards to Claim 50, Zhao teaches The method of claim 36, further comprising displaying, by the processor, geometric shapes corresponding to the data indicative of the blood determined (Zhao in ¶29 discloses displaying arrows, icons, boundaries, and flashing points corresponding to detected blood).
Claim 55
In regards to Claim 55, Zhao teaches The method of claim 36, locating, by the processor, a position of the detected blood (Zhao in ¶83 discloses identifying and tracking the position/site of detected blood).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhao et al (EP 3603510 B1, hereafter referred to as Zhao).
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, Zhao teaches The device of claim 2, wherein the device further comprises a speaker and the alert is an audible alert (Zhao in ¶67 discloses generating visual/auditory warnings when blood is detected).
Zhao does not expressly identify the sound output component as a “speaker”.
The term “speaker” is interpreted in light of the specification, specifically ¶51, which states “the speaker 205 is any type of device capable of emitting an audible alert to the operator 101”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Zhao’s disclosed auditory warning on a speaker responsive to the auditory warning described. Zhao provides the reason for the modification in ¶67, which is to audibly notify the surgeon or other personnel when bleeding is detected. A speaker would have output sound without changing Zhao’s blood detection operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, and the predictable result would have been Zhao’s auditory warning emitted so that the operator could hear the blood detection alert.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 38
Regarding Claim 38, Zhao teaches The method of claim 37, further comprising generating, by the processor, alerts on a speaker and the alert is an audible alert (Zhao in ¶67 discloses generating visual/auditory warnings when blood is detected).
Zhao does not expressly identify the sound output component as a “speaker”.
The term “speaker” is interpreted in light of the specification, specifically ¶51, which states “the speaker 205 is any type of device capable of emitting an audible alert to the operator 101”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Zhao’s disclosed auditory warning on a speaker responsive to the auditory warning described. Zhao provides the reason for the modification in ¶67, which is to audibly notify the surgeon or other personnel when bleeding is detected. A speaker would have output sound without changing Zhao’s blood detection operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, and the predictable result would have been Zhao’s auditory warning emitted so that the operator could hear the blood detection alert.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhao et al (EP 3603510 B1, hereafter referred to as Zhao) in view of Siembab et al (US 20190287382 A1, hereafter referred to as Siembab).
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, Zhao teaches The device of claim 2.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of wherein the device further comprises a vibrator and the alert is a vibratory alert.
However, Siembab teaches wherein the device further comprises a vibrator and the alert is a vibratory alert (Siembab in ¶61 discloses a “vibration alert which vibrates the SIMS device using an internal vibration device”).
Siembab is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of promptly communicating a condition/state identified through image analysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection triggered warning output of Zhao with Siembab’s controlled internal vibration device because Siembab teaches that the vibration device provides one of multiple selectable warning options when a detected target is found in an image (Siembab, ¶15, 31, 52, 61); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into Zhao’s process would cause the blood detection event to generate a vibratory alert, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zhao already produced a detection triggered warning signal and Siembab expressly demonstrates activating a vibration device in response to the selected alert mode.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 39
Regarding Claim 39, Zhao teaches The method of claim 37.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of further comprising generating, by the processor, alerts on a vibrator and the alert is a vibratory alert.
However, Siembab teaches further comprising generating, by the processor, alerts on a vibrator and the alert is a vibratory alert (Siembab in ¶61 discloses a “vibration alert which vibrates the SIMS device using an internal vibration device”).
Siembab is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of promptly communicating a condition/state identified through image analysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection triggered warning output of Zhao with Siembab’s controlled internal vibration device because Siembab teaches that the vibration device provides one of multiple selectable warning options when a detected target is found in an image (Siembab, ¶15, 31, 52, 61); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into Zhao’s process would cause the blood detection event to generate a vibratory alert, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zhao already produced a detection triggered warning signal and Siembab expressly demonstrates activating a vibration device in response to the selected alert mode.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 16-17, 32-33, 43, 45, and 51-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhao et al (EP 3603510 B1, hereafter referred to as Zhao) in view of Cappello et al (EP 3933553 A1, hereafter referred to as Cappello).
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8, Zhao teaches The device of claim 6.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of wherein the processor is configured to convert pixels determined to be blood to red and display data indicative of the converted pixels.
However, Cappello teaches wherein the processor is configured to convert pixels determined to be blood to red and display data indicative of the converted pixels (Cappello in ¶123, 130 discloses applying a predetermined color, like red, to selected/indicated objects).
Cappello is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of making identified image regions recognizable by assigning a display color.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the false color value applied to Zhao’s detected blood pixels with Cappello’s predetermined red color because Cappello teaches that applying a predetermined color enables the viewer to identify the selected object and expressly identifies red as an available predetermined color (Cappello, ¶123, 128-130); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would display the pixels determined to be blood in red, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zhao already identifies the blood pixels and writes a false color value to those pixels, so the modification would change the output color without changing Zhao’s blood detection process.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10, Zhao teaches The device of claim 6.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of wherein the processor is configured to convert pixels determined to be blood to yellow and display data indicative of the converted pixels.
However, Cappello teaches wherein the processor is configured to convert pixels determined to be blood to yellow and display data indicative of the converted pixels (Cappello in ¶123, 130 discloses applying a predetermined color, like yellow, to selected/indicated objects).
Cappello is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of making identified image regions recognizable by assigning a display color.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the false color value applied to Zhao’s detected blood pixels with Cappello’s predetermined yellow color because Cappello teaches that applying a predetermined color enables the viewer to identify the selected object and expressly identifies yellow as an available predetermined color (Cappello, ¶123, 128-130); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would display the pixels determined to be blood in yellow, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zhao already identifies the blood pixels and writes a false color value to those pixels, so the modification would change the output color without changing Zhao’s blood detection process.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 16
Regarding Claim 16, Zhao teaches The device of claim 15.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of wherein the geometric shape is a circle.
However, Cappello teaches wherein the geometric shape is a circle (Cappello in ¶122 discloses a circle as a graphical element indicating a selected object).
Cappello is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of overlaying a geometric graphical element at an identified image location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao’s blood site icon/boundary with Cappello’s circular graphical element positioned at the detected location because Cappello teaches that a circular graphical element can visually indicate a corresponding selected object and can communicate information through its displayed size (Cappello, ¶121); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would display a circle corresponding to data indicative of detected blood, with a reasonable expectation of success, because both references generate ordinary graphical overlays at determined image locations.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17
Regarding Claim 17, Zhao teaches The device of claim 15.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of wherein the geometric shape is a rectangle.
However, Cappello teaches wherein the geometric shape is a rectangle (Cappello in ¶122 discloses a square as a graphical element indicating a selected object. The Examiner finds that a square is a rectangle.).
Cappello is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of overlaying a geometric graphical element at an identified image location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao’s blood site icon/boundary with Cappello’s rectangular graphical element positioned at the detected location because Cappello teaches that a square graphical element can visually indicate a corresponding selected object and can communicate information through its displayed size (Cappello, ¶122); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would display a square/rectangle corresponding to data indicative of detected blood, with a reasonable expectation of success, because both references generate ordinary graphical overlays at determined image locations.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 32
Regarding Claim 32, Zhao teaches The device of claim 1.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of further comprising an extended reality headset.
However, Cappello teaches further comprising an extended reality headset (Cappello in ¶3 discloses “head-mountable display units (HMDs)”).
Cappello is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of presenting generated stereoscopic or augmented images to a viewer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao’s stereoscopic display endpoint with Cappello’s head-mountable display because Cappello teaches that its HMD provides a head worn output for generated images and can superpose a virtual image over the user’s view of the real external environment (Cappello, ¶25, 81-82); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would present Zhao’s blood indicative scenes through an extended reality headset worn by an operator, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zhao already generates synchronized left and right image streams and Cappello provides separate eye displays, supports stereoscopic images, and receives generated image data over a wired or wireless link.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 33
Regarding Claim 33, Zhao in view of Cappello teaches The device of claim 32, wherein the processor is further configured to display the image and a second image identical to the image to the display (Cappello in ¶3 discloses “head-mountable display units (HMDs)”; ¶81-82 discloses “generating either stereoscopic images for which left images and right images are displayed to the respective eyes or generating a single image that is displayed to both eyes.”).
Claim 43
Regarding Claim 43, Zhao teaches The method of claim 41.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of further comprising: converting, by the processor, pixels determined to be blood to red; and displaying, by the processor, data indicative of the converted pixels to the display.
However, Cappello teaches further comprising:
converting, by the processor, pixels determined to be blood to red (Cappello in ¶123, 130 discloses applying a predetermined color, like red, to selected/indicated objects); and
displaying, by the processor, data indicative of the converted pixels to the display (Cappello in ¶123, 130 discloses displaying results).
Cappello is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of making identified image regions recognizable by assigning a display color.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the false color value applied to Zhao’s detected blood pixels with Cappello’s predetermined red color because Cappello teaches that applying a predetermined color enables the viewer to identify the selected object and expressly identifies red as an available predetermined color (Cappello, ¶123, 128-130); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would display the pixels determined to be blood in red, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zhao already identifies the blood pixels and writes a false color value to those pixels, so the modification would change the output color without changing Zhao’s blood detection process.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 45
Regarding Claim 45, Zhao teaches The method of claim 41.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of further comprising: converting, by the processor, pixels determined to be blood to yellow; and displaying, by the processor, data indicative of the converted pixels to the display.
However, Cappello teaches further comprising:
converting, by the processor, pixels determined to be blood to yellow (Cappello in ¶123, 130 discloses applying a predetermined color, like yellow, to selected/indicated objects); and
displaying, by the processor, data indicative of the converted pixels to the display (Cappello in ¶123, 130 discloses displaying results).
Cappello is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of making identified image regions recognizable by assigning a display color.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the false color value applied to Zhao’s detected blood pixels with Cappello’s predetermined yellow color because Cappello teaches that applying a predetermined color enables the viewer to identify the selected object and expressly identifies yellow as an available predetermined color (Cappello, ¶123, 128-130); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would display the pixels determined to be blood in yellow, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zhao already identifies the blood pixels and writes a false color value to those pixels, so the modification would change the output color without changing Zhao’s blood detection process.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 51
Regarding Claim 51, Zhao teaches The method of claim 50.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of further comprising displaying, by the processor, the geometric shape of a circle corresponding to the data indicative of the blood determined.
However, Cappello teaches further comprising displaying, by the processor, the geometric shape of a circle corresponding to the data indicative of the blood determined (Cappello in ¶122 discloses a circle as a graphical element indicating a selected object).
Cappello is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of overlaying a geometric graphical element at an identified image location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao’s blood site icon/boundary with Cappello’s circular graphical element positioned at the detected location because Cappello teaches that a circular graphical element can visually indicate a corresponding selected object and can communicate information through its displayed size (Cappello, ¶121); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would display a circle corresponding to data indicative of detected blood, with a reasonable expectation of success, because both references generate ordinary graphical overlays at determined image locations.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 52
Regarding Claim 52, Zhao teaches The method of claim 50.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of further comprising displaying, by the processor, the geometric shape of a rectangle corresponding to the data indicative of the blood determined.
However, Cappello teaches further comprising displaying, by the processor, the geometric shape of a rectangle corresponding to the data indicative of the blood determined (Cappello in ¶122 discloses a rectangle as a graphical element indicating a selected object. The Examiner finds that a square is a rectangle.).
Cappello is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of overlaying a geometric graphical element at an identified image location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao’s blood site icon/boundary with Cappello’s rectangular graphical element positioned at the detected location because Cappello teaches that a square graphical element can visually indicate a corresponding selected object and can communicate information through its displayed size (Cappello, ¶122); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would display a square/rectangle corresponding to data indicative of detected blood, with a reasonable expectation of success, because both references generate ordinary graphical overlays at determined image locations.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-14 and 46-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhao et al (EP 3603510 B1, hereafter referred to as Zhao) in view of Zhu et al (US 20190273901 A1, hereafter referred to as Zhu).
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11, Zhao teaches The device of claim 1.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of further comprising a control setting, the processor further configured to perform color conversion to a plurality of pixels of the images that are determined not to be blood.
However, Zhu teaches further comprising a control setting, the processor further configured to perform color conversion to a plurality of pixels of the images that are determined not to be blood (Zhu in ¶18, 34-37, 47 discloses using an input defined color mask, preserving selected color regions, and rendering the remaining portions monochromatically).
Zhu is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of visually distinguishing an identified image region from surrounding pixels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao’s displayed image processing with Zhu’s input defined color mask and compositing operation, using Zhao’s blood indicative locations as the selected mask portion and the nonblood locations as the converted remainder, because Zhu teaches that the operation provides a selective color image in which the portions included in the color mask remain in color while the remaining portions are rendered monochromatically (Zhu, ¶36-37, 47); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would perform color conversion on pixels determined not to be blood while retaining blood indicative portions in the displayed composite, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zhao already identifies and masks blood locations and Zhu performs the complementary mask, conversion, and compositing operation on captured image data.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12, Zhao in view of Zhu teaches The device of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to convert pixels determined not to be blood to shades of gray and display data indicative of the converted pixels (Zhu in ¶36-37, 47 discloses generating and displaying a monochromatic copy for the nonselected remainder).
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, Zhao in view of Zhu teaches The device of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to convert pixels determined not to be blood to shades of blue and display data indicative of the converted pixels (Zhu in ¶36-37, 47 discloses generating and displaying a monochromatic copy for the nonselected remainder. Merriam-Webster defines “monochrome” as “involving or producing visual images in a single color or in varying tones of a single color (such as gray)”. Zhu in ¶28 discloses capturing colors such as blue. Using blue as the monochromatic color is a straightforward, predictable implementation given Zhu’s disclosure.).
Claim 14
Regarding Claim 14, Zhao in view of Zhu teaches The device of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to convert pixels determined not to be blood to a fixed color and displaying data indicative of the converted pixels (Zhu in ¶36-37, 47 discloses generating and displaying a monochromatic copy for the nonselected remainder. Merriam-Webster defines “monochrome” as “involving or producing visual images in a single color or in varying tones of a single color (such as gray)”.).
Claim 46
Regarding Claim 46, Zhao teaches The method of claim 36.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of further comprising performing color conversion to a plurality of pixels of the images that are determined not to be blood based upon a control setting.
However, Zhu teaches further comprising performing color conversion to a plurality of pixels of the images that are determined not to be blood based upon a control setting (Zhu in ¶18, 34-37, 47 discloses using an input defined color mask, preserving selected color regions, and rendering the remaining portions monochromatically).
Zhu is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of visually distinguishing an identified image region from surrounding pixels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao’s displayed image processing with Zhu’s input defined color mask and compositing operation, using Zhao’s blood indicative locations as the selected mask portion and the nonblood locations as the converted remainder, because Zhu teaches that the operation provides a selective color image in which the portions included in the color mask remain in color while the remaining portions are rendered monochromatically (Zhu, ¶36-37, 47); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would perform color conversion on pixels determined not to be blood while retaining blood indicative portions in the displayed composite, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zhao already identifies and masks blood locations and Zhu performs the complementary mask, conversion, and compositing operation on captured image data.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 47
Regarding Claim 47, Zhao in view of Zhu teaches The device of claim 46, further comprising:
converting pixels, by the processor, determined not to be blood to shades of gray; and displaying, by the processor, data indicative of the converted pixels to the display (Zhu in ¶36-37, 47 discloses generating and displaying a monochromatic copy for the nonselected remainder).
Claim 48
Regarding Claim 48, Zhao in view of Zhu teaches The method of claim 46, further comprising: converting, by the processor, pixels determined not to be blood to shades of blue; displaying, by the processor, data indicative of the converted pixels. (Zhu in ¶36-37, 47 discloses generating and displaying a monochromatic copy for the nonselected remainder. Merriam-Webster defines “monochrome” as “involving or producing visual images in a single color or in varying tones of a single color (such as gray)”. Zhu in ¶28 discloses capturing colors such as blue. Using blue as the monochromatic color is a straightforward, predictable implementation given Zhu’s disclosure.).
Claim 49
Regarding Claim 49, Zhao in view of Zhu teaches The method of claim 46, further comprising:
converting, by the processor, pixels determined not to be blood to a fixed color; and displaying, by the processor, data indicative of the converted pixels. (Zhu in ¶36-37, 47 discloses generating and displaying a monochromatic copy for the nonselected remainder. Merriam-Webster defines “monochrome” as “involving or producing visual images in a single color or in varying tones of a single color (such as gray)”.).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhao et al (EP 3603510 B1, hereafter referred to as Zhao) in view of Ubillos et al (US 20130239057 A1, hereafter referred to as Ubillos).
Claim 18
Regarding Claim 18, Zhao teaches The device of claim 1.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of further comprising a sensitivity control with a range spanning a low setting to a high setting.
However, Ubillos teaches further comprising a sensitivity control with a range spanning a low setting to a high setting (Ubillos in Abstract and ¶4-5 discloses a slider/range control whose positions correspond to image/color property values).
Ubillos is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of allowing an operator to control an image processing parameter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao’s predetermined blood indication threshold with Ubillos’ slider control having track positions mapped to a range of image processing values because Ubillos teaches that the slider permits the user to modify an image property, with each slider position corresponding to a property value and the slider track specifying the available range (Ubillos, ¶3, 5-6); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would make Zhao’s blood detection sensitivity a user selectable range spanning low and high settings, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zhao’s criteria is already represented by a numerical threshold and Ubillos directly maps slider positions to numerical values.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 22-23 and 56-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhao et al (EP 3603510 B1, hereafter referred to as Zhao) in view of Tomizawa (US 20080010007 A1, hereafter referred to as Tomizawa).
Claim 22
Regarding Claim 22, Zhao teaches The device of claim 1.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of wherein the processor is further configured to store data indicative of waypoints as selected by an operator.
However, Tomizawa teaches wherein the processor is further configured to store data indicative of waypoints as selected by an operator (Tomizawa in ¶2, 11-19 discloses storing positional information for user set waypoints).
Tomizawa is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of retaining location information so that a user can later identify or return to a target location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao’s blood site data with Tomizawa’s user input and destination waypoint history storage by storing positional data for an operator selected blood site because Tomizawa teaches that storing the selected positional information allows that information to be reused to set destination waypoints and retains useful locations for later (Tomizawa, ¶25, 55); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would preserve an operator selected blood site position as waypoint data for later retrieval or return, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zhao already uses a processor and memory to save blood location information and Tomizawa implements waypoint selection and storage.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 23
Regarding Claim 23, Zhao in view of Tomizawa teaches The device of claim 22, wherein the processor is further configured to display data indicative of the waypoints selected by the operator as requested by the operator (Tomizawa in ¶11-19, 28 discloses storing waypoint information for subsequent user selection/request).
Claim 56
Regarding Claim 56, Zhao teaches The method of claim 36.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of further comprising storing, by the processor, data indicative of waypoints as selected by an operator.
However, Tomizawa teaches further comprising storing, by the processor, data indicative of waypoints as selected by an operator (Tomizawa in ¶2, 11-19 discloses storing positional information for user set waypoints).
Tomizawa is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of retaining location information so that a user can later identify or return to a target location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao’s blood site data with Tomizawa’s user input and destination waypoint history storage by storing positional data for an operator selected blood site because Tomizawa teaches that storing the selected positional information allows that information to be reused to set destination waypoints and retains useful locations for later (Tomizawa, ¶25, 55); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would preserve an operator selected blood site position as waypoint data for later retrieval or return, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zhao already uses a processor and memory to save blood location information and Tomizawa implements waypoint selection and storage.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 57
Regarding Claim 57, Zhao in view of Tomizawa teaches The method of claim 56, further comprising detecting, by the processor, data indicative of the waypoints selected by the operator as requested by the operator (Tomizawa in ¶11-19, 28 discloses storing waypoint information for subsequent user selection/request).
Claim(s) 24-26 and 58-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhao et al (EP 3603510 B1, hereafter referred to as Zhao) in view of Waldman (US 20110199479 A1, hereafter referred to as Waldman).
Claim 24
Regarding Claim 24, Zhao teaches The device of claim 1.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of wherein the processor is further configured for locating position and orientation of the device.
However, Waldman teaches wherein the processor is further configured for locating position and orientation of the device (Waldman in Abstract discloses detecting geographic device position, camera direction, and tilt/orientation).
Waldman is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of spatially registering displayed information with a viewed scene as the device/camera moves.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao’s use of endoscope motion and location information with Waldman’s GPS or triangulation, digital compass, accelerometer, and processor arrangement for locating device position and orientation because Waldman teaches that detecting geographic positions, camera direction, and tilt allows the device to determine which features or points of interest are within the field of view of the captured video (Waldman, ¶35); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would cause Zhao’s processor to locate the device’s position and orientation and maintain spatial correlation of the blood site with the camera view, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zhao already discusses using endoscope motion and location to position an icon and Waldman demonstrates a camera, display, GPS, compass, and accelerometer arrangement that supplies required pose data.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 25
Regarding Claim 25, Zhao in view of Waldman teaches The device of claim 24, wherein the processor is further configured to store data indicative of three-dimensional virtual waypoints as selected by an operator (Waldman in Abstract discloses “communication device detects geographic position … user sends a search request to a server for nearby points of interest … communication device receives search results based on the search request, geographic position”).
Claim 26
Regarding Claim 26, Zhao in view of Waldman teaches The device of claim 25, wherein the processor is further configured to display data indicative of the three-dimensional virtual waypoints in an augmented reality fashion as requested by the operator (Waldman in Abstract discloses “communication device detects geographic position … user sends a search request to a server for nearby points of interest … communication device receives search results based on the search request, geographic position”).
Claim 58
Regarding Claim 58, Zhao teaches The method of claim 36.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of further comprising locating, by the processor, a position and an orientation of the device.
However, Waldman teaches further comprising locating, by the processor, a position and an orientation of the device (Waldman in Abstract discloses detecting geographic device position, camera direction, and tilt/orientation).
Waldman is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of spatially registering displayed information with a viewed scene as the device/camera moves.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao’s use of endoscope motion and location information with Waldman’s GPS or triangulation, digital compass, accelerometer, and processor arrangement for locating device position and orientation because Waldman teaches that detecting geographic positions, camera direction, and tilt allows the device to determine which features or points of interest are within the field of view of the captured video (Waldman, ¶35); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would cause Zhao’s processor to locate the device’s position and orientation and maintain spatial correlation of the blood site with the camera view, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zhao already discusses using endoscope motion and location to position an icon and Waldman demonstrates a camera, display, GPS, compass, and accelerometer arrangement that supplies required pose data.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 59
Regarding Claim 59, Zhao teaches The method of claim 36.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of further comprising storing, by the processor, data indicative of three-dimensional virtual waypoints as selected by an operator.
However, Waldman teaches further comprising storing, by the processor, data indicative of three-dimensional virtual waypoints as selected by an operator ((Waldman in Abstract discloses “communication device detects geographic position … user sends a search request to a server for nearby points of interest … communication device receives search results based on the search request, geographic position”).
Waldman is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of presenting and interacting with a spatially registered location indicator in a camera viewed environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao’s stored blood site information with Waldman’s stored user selectable point of interest representation and pose aware augmented display because Waldman teaches that the representation identifies points of interest within the camera field of view and allows a user to select a displayed point and receive an overlaid route to it (Waldman, ¶35, 38-39, 46, 51-52); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the process of Zhao would represent a saved blood site location as a virtual point selectable by an operator and spatially registered using device position, camera direction, and tilt, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zhao already saves blood site location information and Waldman implements local point of interest data, user input, pose processing, and camera view overlays.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 27 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhao et al (EP 3603510 B1, hereafter referred to as Zhao) in view of Glasz et al (US 20180262692 A1, hereafter referred to as Glasz).
Claim 27
Regarding Claim 27, Zhao teaches The device of claim 1.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of further comprising a handle.
However, Glasz teaches further comprising a handle (Glasz in Abstract discloses “The camera rig includes a handle”).
Glasz is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of physically supporting and manipulating a camera and display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the physical support structure of Zhao’s camera, processor, and display with Glasz’s handle camera arrangement because Glasz teaches that a handle allows a user to move the camera rig with their hands (Glasz, ¶18); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the device of Zhao would allow the operator to support, aim, and manipulate the camera/display rig as a unit, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Glasz shows a complete mechanical rig with a camera and expressly provides its handles for movement.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 29
Regarding Claim 29, Zhao teaches The device of claim 1.
Zhao does not explicitly teach all of further comprising a frame.
However, Glasz teaches further comprising a frame (Glasz in ¶7 discloses “the first front face plate includes a first face plate frame. The frame surrounds the interactive touch screen”).
Glasz is analogous art because it is pertinent to Zhao’s problem of physically supporting and manipulating a camera and display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the physical support structure of Zhao’s camera, processor, and display with Glasz’s face plate frame because Glasz teaches that the frame holds the smartphone in the mount while allowing the user to view and access its controls (Glasz, ¶19, 24); thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this feature into the device of Zhao would hold the camera/display assembly while keeping the display and controls visible and usable, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Glasz shows a complete retaining frame arrangement.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 30
Regarding Claim 30, Zhao in view of Glasz teaches The device of claim 29, wherein the frame further comprises one or more handles (Glasz in Abstract discloses “The camera rig includes a handle”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN P CASCAIS whose telephone number is (703) 756-5576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. O'Neal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Date: 8/28/2026
Prosecution Insights